backtop

Hardware Apple Announces the 13.3" MacBook
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - May 16, 2006 8:45 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by iamright.. on May 17 at 11:14 AM
Available in both black and white and starting at $1,099

Apple has been successfully launching and transitioning its computers over to Intel processors since early this year. During MacWorld, Steve Jobs vowed that all Macs will be using Intel processors by 2007. So far, Apple has done quite a commendable job at keeping its promise.
Today marks another major milestone for Apple: an Intel-based MacBook family which replaces the venerable iBook family that has been as critical to Apple's ongoing success as the 3-series is to BMW. Sources told DailyTech that Apple had originally planned to release the new MacBooks as early as last Tuesday, but yanked the launch at the last minute due to a shortage of stock on units.

The new MacBook follows the MacBook Pro in very close proximity. Specifications include Intel Core Duo processors ranging from 1.83GHz to 2.0GHz. The new MacBooks also come with all the ports that are available on the new MacBook Pros including two USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 400 port, a GbE port and a DVI port that supports single-link displays (1920x1200 max). Also included is an iSight camera, Front Row with Apple Remote and the MagSafe power connector.

The newest feature to be introduced to the MacBook however is its 13.3-inch display, roughly one inch larger than the entry level iBook. The iBook previously was also available in a 14-inch model, which is currently not available in the MacBook series although some predict that Apple will launch a slightly larger and more upgraded MacBook down the line, similar to what Apple has done with the new 17-inch MacBook Pro. On the outside, the new MacBooks are available in two color choices: black or white, but don't use the same aluminum outer casing as the bigger MacBook Pro series.

The two white MacBooks announced today are shipping immediately starting with a price of $1,099 USD. The $1,499 USD black 2.0GHz MacBook ships within 3-7 business days.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Shame about the GFX
By Donegrim on 5/16/2006 9:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
If it wasn't for Intel's extreme integrated graphics powered by tubes and punchcards I would love one of these. Its a shame that to get decent graphics you have to shell out for the full macbook pro, but I suppose they need something to differentiate between the product lines.




RE: Shame about the GFX
By ksherman on 5/16/2006 10:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
I know... a lot of people are gonna be angry with it... I REALLY want to get one of these... Im wondering if the GFX card alone is gonna be ad enough to turn me away...

anyone know if this is goog enough to run the Adobe CS, Aperature, Final Cut Pro, etc... or is it really THAT bad? It seems it only real downfall is 3D, and I dont do a whole lot with 3D right now...


RE: Shame about the GFX
By Spoonbender on 5/16/2006 10:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that there isn't a *good* integrated graphics solution for Intel. Sure, you could stick in a discrete GPU like, say, a 7300, but that requires a good deal more power and space, and the weight goes up. All three would work directly against what they're trying to achieve with these macbooks.

If they'd used AMD, both ATI and NVidia would have vastly superior integrated graphics options on offer. What a shame...


RE: Shame about the GFX
By ksherman on 5/16/2006 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
and not that it NEEDS more RAM, but only 64MB is allocated to it... wonder if that can be changed somewhere... prolly in a .kext file or something....


RE: Shame about the GFX
By hans007 on 5/16/2006 11:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
i have no idea how "using AMD" has anything with having good integrated graphics.

honestly i'd rather have a core duo in there than anything from amd.

not to mention the ATI integrated chipset (which is better than the nvidia ones) is available on intel platforms


RE: Shame about the GFX
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/16/2006 11:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
What he means is that AMD based notebooks solutions typically come with either integrated ATI graphics or NVIDIA nForce/GeForce graphics. Either would be far superior to GMA950.

Now you could get a bottom rung AMD based notebook with integrated SiS graphics, but those usually linger around the $500 - $600 price point.


RE: Shame about the GFX
By Samus on 5/16/2006 5:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Because with the exception of SiS, all mobile AMD chipsets are vastly superior in integrated graphics performance to Intel's craptastic Extreme Graphics engine, which has been around for 6 years and still has horrific 3D problems. Even the 2D environment (which OSX doesn't use anyway) is terrible, with generally poor RAMDAC output and plaguing driver issues.

This ALONE is enough for me to rule out virtually ALL Intel mobile offerings. I'm sorry, they do have a superior mobile chip (Core Duo) but the integrated graphics choices are terrible


Shame about the GFX
By milnerw on 5/16/2006 6:57:32 PM , Rating: 1
My mate has just got one of the current macbook pro's and it comes with an ATI x1600 in it and with mac's boot camp and windows running it did a very nice job of running half life 2 and then casualy swaped back to mac os for abit of music editing...... I think that they are great bits of kit and that you lot need to stand up and pull your heads out of your own a***'s and give them a try as they are honestly very good bits of kit


RE: Shame about the GFX
By plinden on 5/16/2006 12:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nyone know if this is goog enough to run the Adobe CS, Aperature, Final Cut Pro

It'll run Photoshop and Aperture easily, not sure about FCPro. You'll notice little or no difference compared with a MacBookPro or iMac with the same CPU. But most Pro apps don't depend on a dedicated GPU.

You won't be able to Boot Camp Windows and play Doom 3 though.


RE: Shame about the GFX
By ksherman on 5/16/2006 12:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
figured that ;-)

bout the only thing I need windows for is Music and AutoCAD...

My desktop takes are of the music (not audio stuff, just MP3s... I use Napster and Tunebite, neither like OSX)

BUT my main motivation for getting a MacBook is for the Video Editing and other graphic design progies... And yes I do know that the Adobe products are not yet native, but they will prolly run faster than on my old 1.5 Celly Laptop...

as far as Games, I have a nice desktop o take care of those urges...


RE: Shame about the GFX
By plinden on 5/16/2006 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I just remembered that Aperture isn't supported on Macs with integrated graphics but there's a way of disabling the hardware check. People have reported being able to use it on Intel powered Mac Minis.


RE: Shame about the GFX
By RandomFool on 5/16/2006 11:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's relly turning me off too, I was hoping for something better than 950. It's still tempting to buy but the graphics is killing me.


RE: Shame about the GFX
By lemonadesoda on 5/16/2006 11:45:57 AM , Rating: 3
The Intel integrated GPU is sufficient for all normal desktop applications.

This is a laptop/sub-notebook. It is not a desktop replacement.

If you want to play 3d games, get yourself a proper PC with a 23+inch TFT screen.


Intel GMA for HD decoding?
By Donegrim on 5/16/2006 2:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know anything about whether Intel's finest has hardware decoding for HD video. If it has that, then I suppose it would do pretty well as a general multimedia/entertainment/various pro software laptop, just so long as no-one wanted to play anything more hardcore than freecell.




RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?
By plinden on 5/16/2006 3:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
HD playback works fine on the 1.66GHz Core Duo Mac Minis. Should be no problem with these.


RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?
By smilingcrow on 5/16/2006 3:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
I’m fairly sure that the GMA950 doesn’t offer H.264 decoding assist in hardware, but the overall system spec should mean it’s fine for HDV playback.


By Ralph The Magician on 5/16/2006 6:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
According to Intel:

HDTV 480i/p, 576i/p, 720i/p and 1080i/p display resolution support

High Definition Hardware Motion Compensation to support high definition hi-bitrate MPEG2 media playback

Up and Down Scaling of Video Content

High Definition Content Decode - up to two stream support

5x3 Overlay Filtering


RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?
By PrinceGaz on 5/16/2006 6:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
I very much doubt that Intel's finest (the GMA950) has hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, however a 2GHz Core Duo should definitely be fast enough for 720p on the CPU.

My Toledo Athlon 64 X2 clocked at 2.5GHz manages 1080p fine though at around 50-70% CPU load across both cores, so the inferior Core Duo mobile chip which is also clocked lower will drop frames without graphics hardware support. Obviously a desktop Core 2 Duo clocked at around 2.5GHz will handle 1080p fine by itself, just as my Toledo does.


By Ralph The Magician on 5/16/2006 6:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: Intel GMA for HD decoding?
By plinden on 5/16/2006 8:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are no published tests of the MacBook yet, but there's a review of the Mac Mini (which also uses the Intel GMA950 graphics) here: http://www.macworld.com/2006/03/reviews/macmini/in...

So I'm pretty sure the MacBook can handle it.

quote:
The GMA950 chip also supports H.264 HD video playback. In our test of an HD movie trailer for IMAX’s Deep Sea 3D (H.264 encoding at 1,440 by 1,080 pixels), the Core Duo model played the video back smoothly. The Core Solo model, however, dropped frames, leading to distracting, stuttering video—even after we upgraded it to 1GB of RAM.


Only 2?
By Sunbird on 5/16/2006 6:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Only 2 USB ports? That sucks.

I just bought a $500 notebook last week and it has 4. And it has none of that two ports on top of each other nonsense, thats prevents having a USB mouse and bulky USB thumbdive/MP3 player both in at the same time.




RE: Only 2?
By iamright on 5/16/2006 7:12:39 PM